Outline planning consent for residential development (up to 52 dwellings) to include access.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and confirmed Members had undertaken a site visit that morning and had viewed the site and assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.  With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, indicative layout and access arrangements.  He explained that whilst the application referred to ‘up to 52 dwellings’ the applicant, following discussions with Planning Officers, had submitted an updated indicative layout plan showing a total of 34 houses and a number of landscaped areas. 

By virtue of the amendment made to Shropshire Council’s Constitution, as agreed at the meeting of Full Council held on 27 February 2014, Councillor David Evans, the local Ward Councillor, made a statement, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         He supported the building of up to 52 dwellings; and

·         The site had been allocated for residential development in the emerging SAMDev.

Cllr Michael Braid, representing Church Stretton Town Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The site had been allocated for residential development in the emerging SAMDev;

·         Church Stretton Town Council supported up to 52 dwellings on this site and not the proposed 34;

·         There was a shortage of sites in Church Stretton of sufficient size to cater for the remaining 18 dwellings; and

·         Granting permission for just 34 homes would impact negatively on the five year land supply.

Mr R Hill, the applicant, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The original application was for up to 52 dwellings, but following consultation with the public and Planning Officers, the number had been reduced; and

·         With regard to the number of dwellings, he commented that he would be guided and would accept the decision of the Planning Committee.

In the ensuing debate, Members noted the comments and concerns of all speakers and Members unanimously supported the proposal.  Members acknowledged that the visibility splays on the junction onto Sandford Avenue would be widened but continued to express reservations regarding highway safety particularly as Sandford Avenue was already used by vehicles travelling in excess of the speed limit and given the increase in traffic that would be generated by this proposal; and they hoped that the applicant would work with the Traffic Management Team and implement any appropriate additional measures.  With regard to the access road, they suggested the use of a more permeable surface rather than asphalt; and suggested that any landscaping scheme should be capable of integrating visually with the surrounding landscape and not impact adversely on the setting of the area.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to a Section 106 Agreement relating to the affordable housing element and the conditions as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, planning permission be granted as per the Officer’s recommendation.